While we welcome a scientific discourse on developing policy for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and on setting guideline limits, the letter by Kundi has a number of inaccuracies. The author appears not to understand the basis for the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998), EMF guidelines, or the use of precautionary measures suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Two of our authors (MR and LK) were instrumental in the development of the draft WHO framework and our views are “not at odds,” but rather consistent, with it. First, the ICNIRP low-frequency EMF guideline limits are based on established adverse health consequences, namely, acute short-term effects on excitable tissues (nerve and muscle cells). The scientific evidence on the association between childhood leukemia and ELF magnetic fields is noted by ICNIRP, but is considered insufficient for guideline formulation. Second, the author’s assertion on relationships between EMF and “cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, childhood and adult brain cancer, male and female breast cancer, and adverse pregnancy outcomes” is not supported by current scientific knowledge. A recent comprehensive health risk assessment by the WHO ELF Task Group (for publication as an Environmental Health Criteria monograph) forms the basis for our understanding of the scientific literature. It found, for example, that the evidence “does not support an association between ELF exposure and cardiovascular disease” (WHO, in press). The evidence